If Lawyers Don’t Trust AI, They Won’t Use It – Artificial Lawyer

By Sabrina Pervez, SpotDraft.

What legal leaders need to know about evaluating AI tools that lawyers will actually use.

Just the other day I hosted a Breakfast for my community group, Women in Legal AI, with a room full of 30 in-house legal professionals, all self-proclaimed AI champions. The theme that emerged was clear: whilst most organisations now assume they’ll adopt some form of AI, whether their lawyers actually go on to embrace and use those tools is an entirely different question(!)

So today, smart legal leaders aren’t asking whether they need AI, they’re asking how to identify AI their lawyers will actually trust and use on a daily basis. The disconnect between how vendors build products and how lawyers work isn’t solved by more features or better marketing.

It requires AI designed for trust from the ground up.

Here are a few critical factors that separate trustworthy AI from expensive shelf-ware.

1. Can the AI explain its reasoning, or is it a black box?

This simple test reveals everything: ask “Why did the AI flag this clause as problematic?” If you hear “proprietary algorithms,” “machine learning patterns,” or just “confidence scores,” you’re looking at a black box lawyers won’t trust.

Compare these responses:

Black Box: “High risk in sections 12 and 15. Confidence: 87%.”

Explainable: “Section 15 allows 30-day termination versus your 90-day template standard.”

The second provides context lawyers can evaluate, challenge, and explain. It treats AI as a research assistant, not an oracle. This difference determines adoption success.

Lawyers must explain reasoning to business teams, defend analysis with seniors and justify decisions to regulators. AI tools that can’t support these requirements create professional liability risks that experienced lawyers instinctively avoid.

2. Does the AI acknowledge what it doesn’t know?

The best AI tools acknowledge uncertainty and explain their limitations.

For example, I’m often doubtful when a Legal AI tool claims to be optimised for all regulations, statutes, sectors, contract types, case law and commentary from even the most obscure jurisdiction. Claims like this can often lead to undelivered promises, and it only requires a couple of inaccurate results for legal teams to lose faith in a new tool entirely.

Moreover, an AI tool that proclaims to be capable of “everything” often isn’t desirable in reality anyway. Often, starting with simple use cases is a great way to build trust amongst teams using AI tools for the first time and this leads to better long term adoption.

3. Is the AI designed to enhance judgment or replace it?

The most successful AI implementations enhance human judgment rather than replace it. This distinction determines adoption success.

Two approaches exist: AI makes decisions that lawyers approve/reject, or AI provides analysis that lawyers evaluate and build upon. The first treats lawyers as quality control checkers. The second treats AI as research assistance augmenting professional capability.

Lawyers take pride in their judgment. Tools that strengthen and showcase that expertise are adopted quickly, while those that undermine it struggle.

In my experience, AI that flags issues – but keeps a human in the loop, suggests language – but allows for customization, and offers analysis – while still preserving final decision authority, is far more palatable for legal teams using technology in this way for the first time.  “Autonomous” legal AI, on the other hand, is much harder to trust.

4. How does the AI handle professional indemnity concerns?

For solicitors and in-house counsel subject to professional indemnity frameworks, demonstrating reasonable care in tool selection is critical. “Black box” AI makes this demonstration impossible.

The most successful AI tools provide comprehensive documentation helping lawyers demonstrate professional competence: detailed records of how AI reaches conclusions, what training data informs analysis, and what limitations affect recommendations. This serves both operational needs and professional accountability requirements, as well as offering some upfront reassurance when using technology of this type for the first time.

5. How does the vendor approach ongoing compliance?

The regulatory landscape continues evolving rapidly. The EU AI Act represents just the beginning of increased AI scrutiny. Partnering with a vendor that prioritises navigating this ever changing environment properly gives legal departments reassurance that the provider cares about compliance just as much as they do. This can go a long way in establishing that early, necessary, trust in a tool.

Don’t be afraid to ask about regulatory compliance approaches when undertaking evaluations: Do they have dedicated monitoring teams? How do they communicate changes? What happens if regulations require major system modifications?

Forward-looking vendors treat compliance as competitive advantage. They invest in transparency, explainability, and accountability supporting current and future regulations.

Why This Matters

The legal industry operates on reputation and trust. Adopting AI is supposed to be an exciting efficiency gain for your team – worries about failed professional standards, compliance problems, or adverse consequences extending beyond technology are the last thing you would want to come along with that.

Evaluating AI using these criteria helps identify vendors aligned with you, and understanding legal requirements versus those still adapting to the market. Focus on trust and accountability rather than impressive demonstrations.

The Bottom Line

At a time when the way in which we work is on the cusp of being revolutionised forever, accepting a tool and keeping your fingers crossed that lawyers adapt doesn’t feel like the best way to embrace and encourage new technology, particularly when you factor in the associated spend.

The legal departments setting tomorrow’s standards are choosing tools that make lawyers feel and, genuinely become, more capable, more confident, and more valuable to their organizations. Trust isn’t optional, it’s the foundation of everything lawyers do, and the vendors they partner with should reflect this.

You can find out more about SpotDraft here.

–

By Sabrina Pervez, Regional Director, EMEA, SpotDraft

—

[ This is a sponsored thought leadership article by SpotDraft for Artificial Lawyer. ]